Propaganda SpinMasters At Work?

[Al_U_Card]

You missed my point. If the rich guy invests time and money in improving the chances for those "unfortunates" they wouldn't have a reason to mug him and might just welcome him to their neighbourhood to see how well his help has done.

 

Now those better off people become loyal customers of the rich guy and ...you know the rest. Something to do with teaching a man to fish, or is that the other thread.....?

[jtfanclub]

You missed my point. If the rich guy invests time and money in improving the chances for those "unfortunates" they wouldn't have a reason to mug him and might just welcome him to their neighbourhood to see how well his help has done.

I assume you know people who work with the poor like that...ask them how many times they've been mugged. Odds are that it's more than you have.

 

There is always somebody who'll kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[Al_U_Card]

Despite the tragic truth of your statement, good thing it doesn't dissuade Doctors without Borders....Red Cross....Peace Corps....etc.

 

Doing the right thing is never wrong.

[luke warm]

Doing the right thing is never wrong.

no, but it is subjective

[Winstonm]

In the case of Hezbollah the contiuing denial of the right of existence of the state of Israel suggests that "the goal" represented is somewhat more extreme than a mere state of their own. The only state that has been acceptable for years on an official basis by the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah has been the complete destruction of Israel and absorbtion by others...

 

Also, the not so slight suggestion that may not be mere rhetoric, to "kill all the Jews" does tend to engender some qualms if you happen to fall into the relevant ethnic (for want of a better description) group!

 

Sure "terrorist" is an emotive word but that is precisely their objective: to strike terror into Israeli hearts (and indeed tourists so that they are discouraged from going to Israel).

 

IMO, this is an example of why the U.S. is so hated in so much of the world - it starts with an unequivocable bias toward Israel and ends by castigating anyone who does not agree with that bias.

 

The U.S. had extremely selfish reasons for supporting Israel's declaration of statehood - a strong ally in the middle east - something the U.S. had never before enjoyed.

 

You are right that Hezbollah does not believe Israel has the right to exist as a nation; however, there are certainly more views of this sort than simply Hezbollah - but the U.S. immediately condemns and outlaws any such thought.

 

Cultural and religious differences do not equate to terrorism - anti-Zionism is not terrorism - we are ciminalizing, outlawing, condemning, and showing utter disdain for centuries-old beliefs that are different from our own.

 

There is no simple solution - but labeling with generalities does not help either.

[Impact]

Winston

 

1. I am not from USA

 

2. It is not the difference of opinion that is the problem - it is the right to exist both as humans (given a stated preference and performance to kill them off) and as a state.

 

3. Anti-zionism is not terrorism: correct.

 

4. Killing people randomly in Israel is terrorism.

 

5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism.

 

6. Your wishful thinking well-intentioned PC view is fine,and may even be pragmatic for you and/or America but IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC MEANING OF THE WORD TERRORIST OR MAKE IT EQUATE ANY THE LESS WITH WHAT THE GROUP does and is.

 

Calling a spade (no racial overtone intended) a spade is not wrong - and it avoids misunderstandings.

[hrothgar]

5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism.

In the US at least, his sort of thing is classified as a hate crime, not terrorism.

 

Here in the US we've seen any number of cases where people have been murdered because they're black or gay or whatever. These are not considered terrorist attacks.

[Winstonm]

Winston

 

1. I am not from USA

 

2. It is not the difference of opinion that is the problem - it is the right to exist both as humans (given a stated preference and performance to kill them off) and as a state.

 

3. Anti-zionism is not terrorism: correct.

 

4. Killing people randomly in Israel is terrorism.

 

5. Even killing Jews because they are Jews is terrorism.

 

6. Your wishful thinking well-intentioned PC view is fine,and may even be pragmatic for you and/or America but IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASIC MEANING  OF THE WORD TERRORIST OR MAKE IT EQUATE ANY  THE LESS WITH WHAT THE GROUP does and is.

 

Calling a spade (no racial overtone intended) a spade is not wrong - and it avoids misunderstandings.

I appreciate the reply.

 

Your definition of terrorism is much wider than mine - I do not classify centuries-old conflicts of tribal culture as terrorism; perhaps you do. That is your right.

 

But to use Israel as an example and thereby imply that threatening Israel is Mulim and/or Arab terrorism is to facilitate a Bushian-like generality upon a culture's beliefs that seem in opposition to your own, IMO. I do not agree that the stated desire to rid the world of Israel is terrorism - it is anti-Zionism and has been around since 1948 and the Arab/Israeli war.

 

Israelis are not automatically wearing the white hat at all times. Jews themselves have not been above using terror as a tactic, as when they bombed the King David Hotel. The latest Israeli attack on Lebanon over the reported kidnapping of 4 Israeli soldiers was as terrorizing to the civilian population of Lebanon as any threat made against Israel by Hezbollah. It is a fact that Israel has been the target of many real terrorists attacks - it is also a fact that Israel has virtually no allies in the middle east and many enemies - but it is also a fact that Israel is not at pure as the driven snow as their treatment of their national Palestinians shows.

 

There are terrorists in Spain, Italy, Ireland, and across the globe, each with its own agenda that is not targeting Israel's demise.

 

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, whether it occurs in Israel, the U.S.A., London, or in Rome.

 

As I stated before, there is no simple solution to the Israel/Arab/Muslin problem - but the U.S. is only making it worse by demonizing and castigating all who oppose the U.S./Israeli views.

 

And that IMO is why polls show the people of the world consider Bush to be the most dangerous leader in the world - he is forefront in the fight to polarize the world into his world view of black and white.

[Impact]

Don't cast me as the whitewasher for Israel.

 

There are a lot of nuances to the conflict(s) in the Middle East.

 

Don't confuse support for any particular cause or its inherent appeal, with support for the methods.

 

Your original point was the appellation of "terrorist" or "terrorism".

 

My comment referred to that.

 

If you happen to support the Palestinians - so be it.

 

However an attempt to suggest that Hezbollah and/or Hamas are not terrorist organisations because effectively you support hteir aims is both disingenuous and beneath you.

 

Note, I am not exculpating Israel or vilifying Palestinians. I just want you to accept that the unpalatable word "terrorist" happens to be an appropriate descriptor for both Hezbollah and Hamas (which is not to say that they can also perform other "civic" work).

 

The other matter from your various posts appears to be an on-going rejection of Western government utterances, combined with a flagellation of the West which appears to amount to almost paranoia on conspiracies. It is one thing to be an iconoclast but it takes judgement to determine the battles which should be fought.

 

While it is approriate to have some scepticism as to self-serving press releases, and utterances from politicians and journalists as representing a factual state, I do think it is taking that attitude too far to automatically assume "not A" when "A" is declared.

[mike777]

BTW I assume you can be a non Jew and be a citizen in Israel.

I assume being a non Jew is pretty tough though.

Are all babies born there citizens?

I do not know.

[Winstonm]

Don't cast me as the whitewasher for Israel.

 

There are a lot of nuances to the conflict(s) in the Middle East.

 

Don't confuse support for any particular cause or its inherent appeal, with support for the methods.

 

Your original point was the appellation of "terrorist" or "terrorism".

 

My comment referred to that.

 

If you happen to support the Palestinians - so be it.

 

However an attempt to suggest that Hezbollah and/or Hamas are not terrorist organisations because effectively you support hteir aims is both disingenuous and beneath you.

 

Note, I am not exculpating Israel or vilifying Palestinians. I just want you to accept that the unpalatable word "terrorist" happens to be an appropriate descriptor for both Hezbollah and Hamas (which is not to say that they can also perform other "civic" work).

 

The other matter from your various posts appears to be an on-going rejection of Western government utterances, combined with a flagellation of the West which appears to amount to almost paranoia on conspiracies. It is one thing to be an iconoclast but it takes judgement to determine the battles which should be fought.

 

While  it is approriate to have some scepticism as to self-serving press releases, and utterances from politicians and journalists as representing a factual state, I do think it is taking that attitude too far to automatically assume "not A" when "A" is declared.

I apologize if I misstated your intent - that is why I used the phrase "beliefs that seem to be your own". I did not mean that as a castigation but as leaving open the possibility that I misunderstood your views.

 

As for me, I do not 100% support Israel without question, nor do I 100% support Palestinians without question.

 

I do not support the use of terrorism as a tactic; however, I do not believe this term can be used in lieu of tribal grievances, national disagreements, war crimes, genocide, and other apt terms.

 

In this sense I cannot view Hezbollah as a total terrorist organization - a total enemy of Israel no doubt. In this sense I believe Russia actually has it right - they do not classify Hezbollah as a terror organization because they see no threat to Russia from this group.

 

Whether the sustaining Israel is of equal importance and equivalent of U.S. national interest is another question; whether Hezbollah would attack the U.S. is an unknown; whether Hezbollah is a direct enemy of the U.S. and therefore should be on the U.S. terror list is not clear cut, at least to me.

[Winstonm]

BTW I assume you can be a non Jew and be a citizen in Israel.

I assume being a non Jew is pretty tough though.

Are all babies born there citizens?

I do not know.

My limited understanding of this problem is that Israel still houses a large number of Palestinians and their treatment by the Israelis is a cause of dissent.

[Winstonm]

I guess turnabout is fair play - seems which side of the fence you are on determines what you believe.

 

Edited for brevity:

 

Reuters

Friday, February 16, 2007

 

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has arrested some 65 men suspected of being behind a deadly bombing that killed members of the elite Revolutionary Guards in a southeastern border province, the student news agency ISNA said on Friday.

 

It quoted the local police chief as saying the suspects had clear links to U.S. and British intelligence services. The claim comes at a time when the United States has accused Iranian groups of involvement in the war in Iraq.

 

A booby-trapped car blew up a bus owned by the Guards on Wednesday, killing at least 11 people in the city of Zahedan, the capital of the Sistan-Baluchestan province which has been the center of low-level unrest over the past months.

 

Iran has accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the sensitive border areas to destabilize the country.

"Our investigations clearly shows their connection to American and British intelligence organizations and also to groups opposed to the Islamic republic," Ghafari said.

 

Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted an unnamed official on Friday as saying those behind the bombing had received training from the United States to create ethnic divisions in Iran.

 

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency also quoted an unnamed official as saying that "explosives used by the terrorists in Zahedan were American made".

[jtfanclub]

BTW I assume you can be a non Jew and be a citizen in Israel.

I assume being a non Jew is pretty tough though.

Are all babies born there citizens?

I do not know.

Any person living in Israel (not Gaza or the West Bank) may become an Israeli citizen. There is a test, but it's no tougher than our citizenship test. You aren't required to become a Jew, of course, but you do have to promise to obey Israel's laws, etc. etc.

 

The Druse, which is a Muslim sect, have not had any problems in Israel and in fact fight in their military. I don't know how non-Druse Muslims who are Israeli citizens fare. I assume their is discrimination, but they do have full rights, including voting rights.

[mike777]

funny enough you can be a born usa citizen and promise nothing on date of birth..I rest my case.

 

You can worship Satin...Devil....etc.......

 

It sounds like in Israel there is some pass/fail test?

[Al_U_Card]

funny enough you can be a born usa citizen and promise nothing on date of birth..I rest my case.

 

You can worship Satin...Devil....etc.......

Well, that explains Bush and Cheney...

[hrothgar]

funny enough you can be a born usa citizen and promise nothing on date of birth..I rest my case.

 

You can worship Satin...Devil....etc.......

 

It sounds like in Israel there is some pass/fail test?

The following web site documents requirements for attaining Israeli Nationality:

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...i%20Nationality

 

A quick scan indicates that there are a number of possible avenues by which one can attain citizenship. The one that seems most germane to this discussion is

 

"Acquisition of by Residence: Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952 became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

 

According to an amendment (1980), further possibilities to acquire citizenship by residence were included in the law."

 

Significant numbers of Arab's became Israeli citizens in 1948. Some of these we're Muslims, others were Christians. I'm sure that there were aethists and Ba'hai and what have you mixed in as well.

 

Its worth noting that there is some debate about these principles taking place in Israel right now. Avigdor Lieberman currently serves as the Minster of Strategic Affairs in the Olmert government. He is quite vocal about his desire to expell Arab's from Israel. My impression is that no one takes him particularly seriously and that he is only part of the government because Israel's system of proportional representation often allows minor parties to act like Kingmakers...

[jtfanclub]

"Acquisition of by Residence:  Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952 became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

And the children of Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis.

 

I don't know how many countries make the child of two illegal immigrants a citizen. I'm not sure I think it's the greatest of ideas for this country, but it seems better than the alternative.

[Winstonm]

"Acquisition of by Residence:  Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952 became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

And the children of Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis.

 

I don't know how many countries make the child of two illegal immigrants a citizen. I'm not sure I think it's the greatest of ideas for this country, but it seems better than the alternative.

If all this is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt its voracity, and there are both Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel, it makes it seem more evident to me that the conflict with Israel basically revolves around the control of holy sites and holy cities - which is in keeping with the concept of a "holy war", to free those areas from "infadel" control.

 

I'm biased, I know, but the logic to me suggests again that there is no world-wide mandate for Islamic dominancy and the threats and terror actions all revolve around distinct territorial disputes. To paint the Bushian picture of an world-wide, ideologically-driven war with radical Islamics seems incredibly naive on Bush's part, or an oversimplification of the problems by narrowing the world from vast shades of gray to simple black and white.

 

I do not mean to cast aspersions here, and do not mean to imply that many in religious groups do not or cannot have open minds and hear other opinions, but at the same time, in my life I have seen more examples of this black and white mentality with fundamentalist religious groups than with more liberal or unaffiliated persons.

 

There is personal psychological comfort in reducing a chaotic world into simple terms of black and white; but that does not make it right or even realistic.

[hrothgar]

If all this is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt its voracity, and there are both Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel, it makes it seem more evident to me that the conflict with Israel basically revolves around the control of holy sites and holy cities - which is in keeping with the concept of a "holy war", to free those areas from "infadel" control.

Hi Winston,

 

I think that you're making a dramatic over-simplification and over-emphasizing the role that religion plays in this conflict.

 

While Judism is undoubtedly a religion, its also a culture and an ethnicity. Personally, I believe that a Jewish identity can exist seperate and distinct from the religious identification. I certainly have a large number of friends who self identify as being Jewish who aren't religiously observant in any way, shape or form. In a similar fashion, I believe that Zionism can exist seperately from religious identity. There has been a long standing tradition of so-called secular Zionism.

 

I think that the conflict in Israel is rooted in something much more simple: Property rights and pride:

 

Zionists have long believer that the Jewish people require their own home land. To some extent, this is a simple extension of the "Romantic Nationalism" that gripped Europe in the 19th century and 20th century. Everyone and their brother was suddenly demanding their own homeland. Germans, Finns, Serbians, Basques, ... You name the ethnic group, I can probably find an equivalent irridentist movement.

 

In the case of Jewish people, I think that one can argue that they have a special claim to their own country. Christian Europe as well as its colonies (IE the United States) treated Jews in a complete reprehensible manner. The Holocaust rates are one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated by humanity. However, above and beyond the Holocaust the long tradition of pogroms, explusions, property confiscation is horrifying to comtemplate in its own right. Many countries like the United States didn't have organized pogroms, however, we refused to accept Jewish immigrants who were attempting to flee the Holocaust. In short, I think that Jews can make a valid claim that past history demonstrates that they need to control their own destiny. Trusting the good intentions of the gentiles has played out too well...

 

Unfortunately for everyone, the the Allies really botched the job of creating a Jewish homeland at the close of World War II. The state of Israel is the last of the great European colonies. Horrific injustices were commited against the Jewish people, but this can't justify seizing land from the native Arabs who inhabited the territories that we now call Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, etc. I think that we all agree that there had to have been a better way to handle this. I really wish that a fraction of the funds that the US had devoted to the Marshall plan has been used to purchase property in the Middle East. The root cause of these troubles are related to the fact that the Palestinians beleive that they were forcible dispossed from their territory. A little money would have a long way in avoiding all these cycles of back and forth violence.

 

Unfortunately, now we seem to be stuck. The Israeli's have set up shop and seem to have no intention of ever leaving. The Palestinians believe that their lands have been stolen. Both sides seem to thoroughly hate and fear one another. I worry that things are going to continue until one side or the other annihilates the other.

[Winstonm]

Richard,

 

Thank you for the information. I am not a scholar and must rely on current reading and the use of logic to try to interpret meanings. You are most likely correct that I have oversimplified - and it is certainly accurate that the term Jewish encompasses more than a religion. Years ago, when I lived in Norman, Oklahoma, site of the University of Oklahoma, I dated a Jewish girl and at the same time had a friend who was from Iran - pointing this out only to show I don't feel I am biased for or against either group. I try my best not to take extreme sides without confirmation of correctness of that viewpoint, realizing that in many conflicts no one is lying but simply telling the truth from their perspective.

 

I have terrific sympathy for the Jewish people and their suffering; I do not fault any Jewish person or the state of Israel for feeling that they must indeed take care of their own - that would be a natural reaction of any group of peoples; at the same time, I'm not willing to demonize Arabs/Islamics, because to them, their concept of reality is that their lands were in essence stolen, nor am I willing to automatically issue a free pass to Israel when, IMO, they overstep simple concern over self-defense.

 

This is probably the reason behind the extreme difficulty in in arriving at any meaningful compromise, that the problem is pride, land, and some religion thrown in just to complicate it more.

 

But, again, I appreciate the knowledge you have supplied.

[Winstonm]

Here is something else that has me baffled: seems as if everything I hear or read about Iran's threat to world peace has to do with its president - but in Iran, the president has no control over the military and cannot declare war or peace. The president is actually an elected official, but is second in command to the Supreme Leader, who is the commander-in-chief of the armies, controls the intelligence, and can declare war.

 

Iran may well have elected a madman as its president, but unless he is no more than a mouthpiece for the Supreme Leader, his threats are hollow. He has no power to act.

[Al_U_Card]

Every time I have heard Ahmadinejad speak, he seems as lucid as any other educated arab/head of state/individual with a specific point of view and upbringing as well as having a religious background.

 

Why characterize him as a "madman"...to vilify him? I call W "little dick" but that is for obvious satirical effect.....it is clear that he is a (reasonably) well-educated politician.

 

If you give credence to the posturings and pandering of the administration and its journalistic puppets....people will start to take it as fact.

 

The man was not selected from a lunatic asylum to lead a country, whether he has CIC powers or not.

[pbleighton]

"Why characterize him as a "madman"...to vilify him?"

 

As an excuse not to deal with Iran.

 

He's not mad.

 

He's bad, though.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Every time I have heard Ahmadinejad speak, he seems as lucid as any other educated arab/head of state/individual with a specific point of view and upbringing as well as having a religious background.

 

Why characterize him as a "madman"...to vilify him?  I call W "little dick" but that is for obvious satirical effect.....it is clear that he is a (reasonably) well-educated politician.

 

If you give credence to the posturings and pandering of the administration and its journalistic puppets....people will start to take it as fact. 

 

The man was not selected from a lunatic asylum to lead a country, whether he has CIC powers or not.

I only say "may have elected a madman" because that is how he is being portrayed in most accounts. My point being that even if this is so, why point a finger at him when it is the Supreme Leader who holds the key to the military on/off switch?

 

If Hitler had held no power to order the German army into Poland, how much threat would he have been?